Abstract
In this paper Strawson's work on a linguistically based metaphysics is used to uncover fundamental similarities in the structure of argumentation in science and the law. It is shown that in both instances a practical judgement regularly has to be made between competing, exclusive vocabularies of freedom and determinism. The analytic significance of the existence of these vocabularies is developed conceptually to suggest how such vocabularies may underlie some of the empirical regularities observed by discourse analysts. These issues are then exemplified through a study of argumentative strategies found in geologists' writings. The paper concludes with proposals for extending the analytic impact of Strawson's work for science studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.